Flexure behavior of reinforced

masonry assemblages under

monotonic and cyclic loading
K S Nanjunda Rao & Joshi Amrut Anant

Department of Civil Engineering

Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, INDIA
 Presentation Outline
 Objectives
 Background
 Experimental program and construction of test specimens
 Testing protocol
 Results & Discussion
 Failure patterns of specimens
 Conclusions
 Acknowledgements
 Objectives
1. To study effect of percentage of near surface mounted
(NSM) steel reinforcement on ductility, equivalent
hysteretic damping and mode of failure of reinforced
masonry beams.
2. To compare the flexure behavior of NSM steel reinforced
masonry beams with masonry beams having
reinforcement at mid-depth.
3. To evaluate equivalent hysteretic damping and stiffness
degradation characteristics of reinforced masonry
beams.
 Past studies to understand flexure behaviour of reinforced masonry
Mode of failure of masonry wall under combined
action of vertical & out-of-plane lateral load
Out-of-plane failure of URM walls is
primarily responsible for collapse of
buildings causing fatalities during
earthquakes.
(Bruneau, 1994; Griffith et. al., 2003; Porto et. al. 2011)

Traditional approaches for

strengthening URM against out-
of-plane failure are;
 Ferro-cementing
 Reinforced plastering
Reinforcement near
the surface on both  Centre core technique
faces  Post-tensioning
 FRP strengthening
 Provision of steel reinforcement
Link connecting (Fodi and Bodi, 2011; Drysdale and
Reinforcement at centre the vertical Hamid, 2008; Hamid et. al.,1990,
reinforcement
Sveinsson et. al., 1985, Rao et. al.,
2004; Raghunath et. al., 2010 & 2012)
Containment reinforcement as an Earthquake Resistant Feature (ERF)
 Experimental program

Cross
sectional Reinforcement details
Beam Description dimensions
designation of beams B D Number of bars
Diameter % of balance
Type at top and
(mm) steel
(mm) (mm) bottom
Sb Stretcher bond 350 110 GI wire 4 2 11.39 (220)#
Eb1 English bond 350 230 GI wire 4 2 2.60 (966)
Eb2 English bond 350 230 Torkari 5.35 2 9.00 (499)
Eb3 English bond 350 230 HYSD 10 2 27.87 (563)
Rtb Rat-trap bond 390 230 GI wire 4.25 4 28.75 (174)
Materials used in the preparation of test specimens
Masonry unit: SEB of dimensions 230 × 108 × 70 mm
Reinforcement
1. Galvanised iron wire of 4mm
Mortar: cement-soil-sand (1:1:6)
diameter
Mortar joint thickness ≈ 10mm
Yield strength:330 MPa
Masonry units were immersed in water for
Modulus of elasticity: 210 GPa
38 minutes before laying to ensure 75% saturation.
2. Torkari bars of 5.35mm diameter
Strength and elastic properties of materials used
Yield strength 570 MPa
Masonry unit
Compressive strength: 11.75 MPa
3. HYSD bars of 10mm diameter
Tensile strength: 0.70 MPa
Yield strength 520 MPa
Modulus: 6800.0MPa
Mortar
Compressive strength: 12.0 MPa
Modulus: 13200.0 MPa
Masonry
Compressive strength: 6.95 MPa
Secant modulus: 4090.0 MPa
 Construction of test specimens

Plan of alternate layers of (a) English

bond (b) rat-trap bond (c) stretcher
bond beams with containment
reinforcement. (all marked dimensions
in mm)
 Testing of specimens

Experimental setup of (a) monotonic bending

(b) cyclic bending test of masonry beams
 Details of monotonic and reverse cyclic testing protocols
Number of beams tested
Shear span for Span to
Masonry beam Span Reverse cyclic
monotonic test effective depth Monotonic test
designation (m) loading test
(m) ratio protocol
protocol
Sb 1.47 0.49 15.2 2 2
Eb1, Eb2 and Eb3 1.43 0.48 6.6 2 2
Rtb 1.40 0.47 12.2 2 2

Typical displacement pattern employed for cyclic tests on reinforced masonry beams
 Results and Discussion
Monotonic loading flexure test results
Quantity
   Beam designation
Quantity Sp. No. Sb Eb1 Eb2 Eb3 Rtb
Sp. No. Sb Eb1 Eb2 Eb3 Rtb
Dcr Sp.I 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.9
Dcr Sp.I 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.9
(mm) Sp.II 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.7
(mm) Sp.II 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.7
Dy Sp.I 6.5 3.3 5.6 4.1
Dy Sp.I 6.5 3.3 5.6 No yielding 4.1
(mm) Sp.II 6.9 2.1 5.3 No yielding 7.0
(mm)
Du Sp.II
Sp.I 6.9
65.0 2.1
36.0 5.3
6.3 19.5 7.0
59.50
Du
(mm) Sp.I
Sp.II 65.0
62.5 36.0
26.0 6.3
6.8 19.5
16.7 59.50
(mm)
D u/ D y
Sp.II
Sp.I 62.5
10.0 26.0
11.0 6.8
1.13 16.7 59.50
14.5
-
Du/ Dyductility Sp.II
Displacement Sp.I 9.0
10.0 12.3
11.0 1.28
1.13 8.5
14.5
-
Sp.I
Displacement ductility Sp.II 7.4
9.0 12.1
12.3 1.3
1.28 9.0
8.5
Curvature ductility -
Sp.II 10.4 7.5 1.3 9.5
Sp.I 7.4 12.1 1.3 9.0
-
Sp.II 10.4 7.5 1.3 9.5

Dcr , Dy and Du : mid-span deflection at first visible crack, yield of

steel and at ultimate respectively
 Failure Pattern
EB3
EB1

Rtb

Failure pattern of the (a) EB1 (b) EB3 (c) Rtb and (d) snapping of steel
Flexure test under reverse cyclic loading

  𝑨𝒉
𝝃 𝒉=
𝟐 𝝅 𝑭 𝒎 𝑫𝒎
𝝃 𝒉 is hysteretic damping
 

(Priestley et. al. 2007)

Hysteretic behavior of reinforced masonry beams
Hysteretic damping and stiffness degradation
 Conclusions
1. By modestly reinforcing masonry it is possible to inhibit brittle failures and
impart ductility and energy dissipation capacity.
2. Near surface mounted reinforcement imparts greater strength and ductility
to masonry than reinforcement provided at mid-depth as in case of rat-trap
bond masonry beams.
3. The masonry beams reinforced with containment steel, did not show
buckling of steel on compression side of bending, affirming the effectiveness
of lateral ties provided through bed joints to hold the containment steel.
4. Provision of containment reinforcement shall be aimed at improving ductility
and not for increasing moment of resistance. Provision of excess steel can
modify the mode of failure from flexure to shear resulting in poor ductility
and brittle collapse.
 Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere thanks to my Institution
“Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India”
for the encouragement and supported extended to me in
conducting this research and for enabling me to participate
in this conference

Thank you